I did speech and debate through all of high school, so I have a basic knowledge of how things work. I did mainly extemporaneous speaking and public forum debate, but I've also competed several times in lincoln douglas debate.

Debate Paradigms:

General- I want to be able to understand what you're saying. Speaking in a manner that makes it harder for your opponents to understand you also makes it harder for me to understand you. Speaking louder than your opponent does not make you automatically correct. Being assertive is perfectly fine, but I will vote against you if you are rude to another competitor. I will be flowing all speeches, so I will know if contentions have been dropped or attacked.

Public Forum- I know public forum best, so feel free to run more complex arguments. In the round, I will allow anything within the rules, but keep in mind that by the end I will rely mostly on weighing and impacts. If the teams agree to a different framework, I will decide by that. I do not expect either side to finish the debate with every contention standing, but if you need to drop a contention make it clear it's on purpose. Vice versa, just because your opponent dropped a contention does not necessarily mean you've won the round. I want to hear the reasoning for the contention's importance and it's impact in either the pro or con world. I want to see a team prove, with solid reasoning and evidence, that they've won the round.

Lincoln Douglas- I haven't debated in this event for several years, but I do still know how it works. Values should be the core of this debate, and I want to hear your value often. I do not want to only hear your value in your introduction speech and then have it dropped until the conclusion. Tie in your contentions to your value; I want your argument to be cohesive. If your opponent takes down your value, and therefore your entire case, early in the debate and you never defend it, that is enough to lose the debate. It is important to note however that I do not accept simply saying one value is more important than the other; it is a debate for a reason. Evidence is still important and can be used in weighing, but remember to focus on the moral aspect of the debate.

What I like to hear: when it comes down to it, pacing, and emphasis on important points are key to great speech delivery, and direct refutations are a must

Total old school debater, just prove how you win each stock issue, and be convincing. Speech roadmaps and organization is much appreciated!

Normally, T and Spec arguments mean that the neg doesn't have much to run, but if it is blatantly untopical, ect., go for it.

Spreading/Champ Reading- awesome, as long as you're good at it. don't try spreading if you haven't practiced, ect.

Public Forum- Clarity is important, why your reasoning is most logical, impact/advantage magnitude, weighing

Ks and CPs- Yes. Kritiks are great as long as you make the three parts clear, and I'm a sucker for philosophy Ks. Counterplans are cool, just again compare stock issues, show how you solve better.

Congress- clash is obviously super important judging aspect, speech organization with a brief overview/roadmap is always great

LD-well developed value&criterion, demonstrate steps of refutation

3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.